master thesis
irrambivalenz
an investigation of the subject-object relationship
in architectural space
institute for experimental architecture | hochbau
Karolin Schmidbaur, Christoph Opperer
2021-2023
abstract
since the introduction of central perspective projection by filippo brunelleschi in the 15th century, architecture and the representation of buildings have been subordinated to this form of projection. the rational, mathematized view and perception of space has now dominated architectural discourse for more than 500 years, always centering on the subject. but the world has changed rapidly over the centuries; we live in a time of radical change and ever-changing physical realities. today is characterized by digital and virtual tools, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift, away from the analog, towards a digital society. my work is an attempt to re-examine long-established thought structures and to look beyond the edge of the rational view of space. aspects such as contrast and ambivalence accompany the project to the end. it moves between irrationality and rationality, between intuition and logic, sensuality and reason, excess and control, and deals with the question of how an architecture of the in-between can emerge. one that incorporates two different views of the world. created in a dialectic process of constant negotiation between two opposing poles and their effects. an architecture that blurs boundaries, that reconciles two divergent mindsets, that celebrates and manifests plurality within itself. an architecture of the analogically digital, the irrationally rational, intuitive logic, the sensual mind and excessive control.
initial drawing
physical model
My project has now been continued on the basis of the theories of Peter Eisenman and the Cubists, with the aim of designing an architectural structure that can generate a shift in the subject-object relationship. My thesis is an interpretation and experiment of such a disruption within the architectural context, which is subject to different parameters in the three-dimensional than in the two-dimensional. In doing so, I limited myself to one of my drawings and tried to develop a spatial structure, based on this drawing, which would serve as a starting point for any further step. The method of inversion was essential for the further course of the project, in that this process changes the model, previously consisting of surfaces, in a profound way, not only in scale, but in its entire geometry. The dominance of approximately two- dimensional surfaces was broken, leading to an increasing spatialization of the structure. The inversion and its effects on the perception of the object were the first step towards an architecture that opposes the classical, spatial perception. The disruption of the subject-object relationship was to find its beginning within the process and articulate itself through the architecture in the final design.
iterations of rotation
All subsequent design steps pursued the goal of arriving at an architecture that opposes a classic perception of space and attempts to create and manifest a disruption in the subject-object relationship - my personal interpretation of such a shift in the usual perception of architecture. How is such a disruption articulated and what parameters is it bound to in architectural space, in which spatial aspects are no longer merely suggested, as on the two-dimensional picture plane, but are physically present? The aim is not a formal adoption of aspects of cubism or the contemporary artists mentioned, such as the fragmentation or deconstruction of various objects. The aim is the idea behind it, which, in a world that is subject to constant radical change and has changed fundamentally in comparison to the Renaissance, demands differentiated reflection on what is perceived and seen. In a world in which reality changes from day to day and in which what we see and what we perceive is no longer based on a fixed point of view, but is multifaceted and ambivalent. The following describes how I understand this disruption, which consists of various aspects, and how I incorporate it into my design. My project attempts to detach this from the two-dimensional surface and transfer it into three-dimensional space. The relationship between subject and object is to be rethought in the research field of architecture in order to ultimately create a geometry that can trigger a shift in the classical and habitual perception of the viewer and the building.
The first important step in the design process was to contextualize the resulting object. It was to be freed from the airless, scaleless space and brought into a realistic, architectural reference. Whereas at the beginning of the process the task was to detach an object depicted in a drawing from the two-dimensional picture plane, it was now essential to develop a building from a three-dimensional object that had gone through various iteration stages. With the help of projected axes, the construct was transformed in terms of spatiality, accessibility and form-specific aspects. Certain geometric peculiarities of the inverted object were smoothed out and adapted to an accessible architecture. Spaces were formulated, the partly arbitrary structure was spatialized and architecturized
The Disruption
The disruption is a process that begins in the approach and observation of the building and continues inside the architecture. In order to create a shift in the relationship between subject and architecture, the latter must be able to deprive the users of some of the control over their subjective, rational perception and bring them into a state of disorientation and dislocation. The building requires a certain relinquishment of control by the subject, which leads to an accumulating uncertainty and gives the building a kind of autonomy. The hierarchy of control shifts away from the subject, who has to give up his complete certainty and clarity, towards the dynamic and autonomous structure of the building. This is the moment when the concept of the “in-between” [Eisenman] must be mentioned. According to my interpretation, this in-between is something that arises when of two rigid entities - in this case the recipient and the building - one of the two gives up or relinquishes a certain part of its autonomy and its taken-for-granted reality, thus shifting the relationships in the hierarchy of control of perception.
This shift in proportionality and thus in subjective reality and the accompanying disorientation and confusion, in my opinion, causes this “in-between” and leads to a world believed to be determined by two entities, to one in which these two are supplemented by another. Disorientation and the ability to orientate fluctuate constantly, moments of orientation are repeatedly displaced by moments of confusion, irrationality and rationality are in constant discussion and constant exchange. One finds oneself in a structure that opposes the rationalization of space by the subject and leaves visitors in a state of uncertainty. In the same way that irrationality and rationality now interact in alternating priority, the interaction of inside and outside also plays a role in the movement through the building. The relationship between exterior and interior aspects was already an essential part of the project at the beginning of the design process. Now this theme is reflected in the movement through the architecture. The moments of disorientation within the construct are repeatedly interrupted by visual references to the surrounding city, allowing the recipients to catch a moment of rationalization.
